Posted on 08/07/2004 9:50:23 AM PDT by unspun
July was a poor month for job creation in the United States.
July was an excellent month for job creation in the United States.
That tale of two employment reports is true, and it continues a trend that has persisted for two and a half years. The discrepancies have made it possible for Republicans to herald a job recovery and for Democrats to deny one exists.
Both sets of statistics were issued by the government's Bureau of Labor Statistics, but they come from very different surveys. One, the establishment survey, which questions 160,000 employers, paints the bleak picture. The other, the household survey, which questions 60,000 people about whether they or other family members are working, paints the better picture.
Which is right? Because of its smaller sample size, the household survey is always more volatile, and month-to-month changes can be deceptive for that reason. So economists normally pay more attention to the establishment survey. But the fact that they differ so drastically may mean that reality lies somewhere in between.
Over all, the household survey now shows that employment has risen by 1.9 million jobs, or 1.4 percent, since President Bush took office, while the establishment survey shows employment is down by 1.1 million jobs, or 0.8 percent.
The establishment survey concluded that July was a poor month, with a seasonally adjusted job growth of just 32,000 jobs, far below what economists were expecting.
On a nonseasonally adjusted basis, the performance was even worse. It showed that there were 1.2 million fewer people working in the United States in July than in June. The adjustment in part reflects seasonal workers who are not paid for the summer, like some school employees.
The household survey, on a seasonally adjusted basis, showed a gain of 629,000 jobs in July. Before seasonal adjustment, the gain was an even larger 839,000 jobs. That may partly reflect the fact there are more agricultural jobs in the summer - which are included in the household survey but not in the establishment one - or that some workers who have the summer off would normally say they had jobs although they had not worked in July.
The household survey is used to calculate the unemployment rate, which fell to 5.5 percent in July, the lowest figure since October 2001.
The two surveys are not intended to produce the same results. The household survey includes the self-employed as well as agricultural workers, who would not be counted in the establishment survey, and the establishment survey counts each job so that a worker with two jobs could be counted twice.
But over time the two surveys have been roughly similar, although with an interesting political difference. Republican administrations tend to produce better household numbers than establishment ones - perhaps reflecting a better environment for the self-employed. Democratic administrations tend to show better establishment figures.
Early in the Bush administration, which took office just as the economy was sliding into a recession after a period of prolonged growth that saw unemployment sink to historically low levels, both surveys showed a shrinking work force. But they began to diverge in early 2002, with the household survey finding steady job gains, while the establishment survey continued to show a shrinking number of people with jobs.
By the time the establishment survey hit bottom, in August 2003, it indicated that 705,000 jobs had vanished since January 2002, bringing the total job loss in the Bush administration to 2.6 million. But the household survey found that nearly 2 million jobs had been added since January 2002, almost reversing the job losses earlier in the Bush administration.
Since then, the two surveys have fluctuated, but the establishment survey has continued to paint a bleaker picture than the household one.
Going back to Harry Truman, Mr. Bush - by either measure - has presided over an economy that has produced the poorest job creation record of any occupant of the White House to this point in a presidential term. The second worst was turned in by President Bush's father, who failed to win a second term in 1992.
But good job records also do not guarantee electoral success. The two best terms by that measure ended in 1968, when Lyndon Johnson was president, and in 1980, when Jimmy Carter was in the White House. In each year the Democrats were thrown out of the White House by dissatisfied voters.
A Democratic partisan would note that six of the seven best presidential terms, as measured by the establishment survey through the first three and a half years, have been under Democratic presidents, with the only Republican to make that list being Ronald Reagan in his second term, when jobs grew by 9.5 percent. The seven worst by that measure were all Republican administrations.
On average, the establishment survey has shown a 10.1 percent rise under Democrats and a 4 percent gain under Republicans. The household survey has shown a less marked preference for Democrats, whose edge is 6.7 percent to 4.8 percent.
Down with the establishment!! Up with households!!
I am shocked that NYT would even mention the other side.
That's more than the Dallas Morning News did.
This is a hide in plain sight article. It is published on a Saturday when the fewest people will read it. Think I'm wrong? Ask yourself if this would ever be published front page above the fold on a weekday, say Monday morning.
Articles like this enable the minded fools to delude themselves into think that the ratmedia isn't bias.
Here's my own personal survey. I'm a family law attorney and always need to know what my clients do for a living. It seems to me that a lot more of them are working for themselves or for small businesses.. and they're doing ok. They're consulting, repairing, doing hair, remodeling, selling real estate, etc. In other words, the economy is adjusting in its own way because midamerican middleclass people are hard workers and welfare isn't tempting them to do otherwise.
Yeah I was shocked to see this in the NY Times, too. Perhaps the shareholders have been grumbling about the Times' plummeting credibility.
Evan Thomas of Newsweak( a liberal BTW) says liberal media bias is worth 15 points to the Kerry campaign.
For further details see the Media Research Center website.(I don't know how to make a link).
Series bias bump
I don't know if I'm going to have to don asbestos here or not.....but something has been rolling around in my mind for sometime now about all this whining about loss of jobs.
To me it is not the job of the President, or any other government entity to create jobs....that is the job of the private sector. To me if government is creating jobs it means that government is GROWING.
Mybe I'm missing something, but I don't want the government creating jobs - I just want it to create an atmosphere for the private sector to do so - particularly by less onerous taxes and regulations.
Am I totally off base here????
I do not know how they could possibly claim that Carter had good jobs, during his malaise economy.
It is also disengenious to compare bush to the depression since he inherited Clinton's resession.
No. The job of the pres is create an environment conducive to job creation. Dems want regulated hiring by large companies and the gov and pubs want large private sector growth...
Just one of the major reasons I'm a Republican. The self-employed tend toward creating small businesses, which is the largest employer of all. The Democrats only hold on small business is the income tax. And the Democrats know it and they use it.
Off base? Nonsense, you're spot on!
Thank you - that is exactly the phrase I was looking for, but it escaped me when I started typing.
I just want smaller government........period
Thanks.
I am here to serve. I knew what you were generally getting.
This dem/versus repub thing always got me. It should conservative versus lib.
I would count the real JFK in our camp ( taxes) and nixon in the (economic) lib camp because of price controls, dept of education and rapid expansion of entitilement programs...
Am I totally off base here????
No, the same sentiment is echoed in the Preamble to the Constitution of The United States.
However, the Democrats have extrapolated the phrase: "provide for the common defense" and "promote" the general welfare" to mean; "promote" the common defense and "provide for the common welfare".
You don't think Hillary wants Kerry to win, do you?
.......as well as the creation of the EPA and other federal bureaucracies. Nixon, as a politician, was abnormal. A hermaphrodite.( I wonder if they have a primary?)
For further details see the Media Research Center website.(I don't know how to make a link).
Here you go
Mag Editor: Media “Want Kerry to Win,” Cover: “Sunshine Boys”
EPA, good point. I forgot about that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.